Debate: Inclusion of Kingdom of Bohemia

[Emperor Walter]

What is the point of including the Kingdom of Bohemia in the game? I mean, it was never really an independent Kingdom at all during the CK time frame (unless you consider the regency during the Hussite wars as independent). Shouldn't it just be restricted to the duke level title? It was used as a non-hereditary title, and from 1212 it was hereditary, but even then the Kingdom of Bohemia was still part of The Holy Roman Empire. And during the civil wars that always start in 1066, Bohemia declares independence, Declares itself a kingdom, and while all other nobels repledge to the king of germany, bohemia is left sticking out like a sore thumb. I therefore do not see the point in including the title in the game at all, as it just leads to completely ahistoric situation. IMO, it would be better to simulate with just the Duke title. What do you think?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I think the problem has more to do with the nigh inevitable collapse of the HRE in most games, than the existence of the Kingdom per se.

Also, I don't really have problems with ahistorical kingdom titles. You also have a Kingdom title for Burgundy, which is much more ahistoric for the time frame than a possible kingdom of Bohemia IMO.

 

[Hawkeye1489]

Such a situation could also be resolved with the inclusion of a fourth-tier in any future update to the game. Although, the Kingdom of Bohemia should remain in the game IMO. By 1356, when Bohemia is given its Electoral status, it is denied any further participation in the affairs of the Empire as it was seen as a neighbouring and sovereign kingdom outside of the Empire.

 

[jordarkelf]

Bohemia -- or technically the Lands of the Bohemian Crown -- was a kingdom, ever since Wratislaus II in 1085. Although technically this was a grant by the HR Emperor, not a hereditary title. It did become hereditary in 1198 under Ottokar I.

Realistically this was a recognition of the much greater power the Bohemian "duke" held over his lands than the German dukes, margraves, and whatnot: the Bohemian ruler had no sovereign other than (nominally since Good King Wenceslas had to submit to Henry the Fowler in 929) the crowned Holy Roman Emperor, whereas all German dukes/princes/etc. were subjects to the King of the Germans, wether or not he was crowned or not.
The Bohemian term for the monarch was 'kníže', a Slav word which has the same roots as Germanic 'king' and is the same one as the Russian 'kniaz', which is translated Great Duke/Prince most of the time. It is a higher rank than the latin 'dux' (Duke), but usually in the West was not recognised as being of the same level as the Catholic kings ('rex').

Maybe and hopefully in CK2 this will be addressable by free tiers as are possible in EU3. Bohemia had the highest rank in the HRE, but was still subject to whoever held the title of HRE.

 

[Drachenfire]

It would be nice to have a tier in which one king could vassalize another, because the mediatization for which you outline above was similar to many relationships in feudal Europe.

Examples abound, such as the relationship between the king of Scotland and that of the Angivine kings of England. In 1114 Henry I of England called on his "vassal" Alexander I of Scotland to campaign in Wales against a resurgent Prince Gruffydd ap Cynan and others. Additionally, the near independence of the Welsh princes, though mediatized since the 1060s, also reflects this kind of relationship. Likewise, the near independence of Aquitaine and of Brittany before it was formally vasselized in 1199.

Perhaps the option to vassalize a king should be a regular feature in a war and diplomatic relations. A king that is vasselized would lose prestige while the king who receives the homage of a mediatized king receives a huge boost in prestige.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

It would be nice to have a tier in which one king could vassalize another, because the mediatization for which you outline above was similar to many relationships in feudal Europe.

Examples abound, such as the relationship between the king of Scotland and that of the Angivine kings of England. In 1114 Henry I of England called on his "vassal" Alexander I of Scotland to campaign in Wales against a resurgent Prince Gruffydd ap Cynan and others. Additionally, the near independence of the Welsh princes, though mediatized since the 1060s, also reflects this kind of relationship. Likewise, the near independence of Aquitaine and of Brittany before it was formally vasselized in 1199.

Perhaps the option to vassalize a king should be a regular feature in a war and diplomatic relations. A king that is vasselized would lose prestige while the king who receives the homage of a mediatized king receives a huge boost in prestige.

Argh, you use Anglo-Scottish relations before the Treaty of Falaise as an example. :wacko:

It's a centuries long dispute between English and Scottish historians. It's safe to say that while sometimes kings of Scotland acknowledged English overlordship of the British Isles, they maintained the position that Kingdom of Scotland is a sovereign realm. But the exact nature of that relationship is heavily disputed.

This article makes some interesting observations about the controversial topic: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3708/1/INDE2Pdauvit.pdf

But then to the topic of the kings. There were kings and "kings". Petty kings (like in early medieval Norway or Celtic areas) were often vassals of high kings. Often the term king however meant nothing more than a local ruler and sometimes like in Welsh case outsiders called these rulers as princes rather than kings, because they didn't fit to the "modern" idea of anointed Christian king. In similar manner Russian and Lithuanian rulers were kings in their own language, but in Western use their titles became Grand Princes because they weren't Catholic rulers.

Technically Prince of Kiev and King of Rus should be same title (Grand Prince of Kiev), although for gameplay reasons that isn't the case. Lithuania is correctly pagan kingdom in later scenarios (and creatable kingdom). Irish and Welsh petty kingdoms are correctly duchies or counties. I'm not certain if Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of Wales are supposed to represent native high kings or English creations of Lordship of Ireland and Principality of Wales.

But in any case kings didn't often have other anointed kings as their vassals. When that is the case it is because for example King of England is also Duke of Normandy. As the King of England he was independent ruler, but as a French duke he was vassal. Naturally it caused disputes about equality between vassal and lord if vassal was also a king.

Technically except in the case of prince/petty king and high king, king couldn't be vassal to anyone except to emperor or to pope. And while Bohemia recognised that emperor is higher ruler, often kings considered themselves equals (or at least almost equals) with the emperor. So thinking that King of France would pledge allegiance to King of Germany is bit far fetched idea. Also the Pope didn't benefit anything from his Norman vassals. Actually Sicily caused more troubles to the Popes than helped them.

 

[Drachenfire]

Well yes I know all that Olaus Petrus

That is why I had placed quotations around the word "vassal" before King of Scotland. I recognize that there are petty kingships and greater kingships, but that flux is what CK is all about. A king may become a petty king if he lost a war or lost influence, exposing his position and opening himself to become effectively mediatized and subsumed as his power waned. Though later he, or his successors, may regain prestige and reassert their position as a "sovereign realm". But at any rate, the fact that there is still a "centuries long dispute between English and Scottish historians;" (well in this case a Welsh historian Professor John Davies of the Uni of Wales who asserts that the Welsh princes were as much a vassal to the Angivine Kings as was the king of Scotland.) serves to illustrate that there was indeed a flux in releative authority regarding the Scotland and England, and much room for argument either way.

Would the King of France vassalize to the Emperor? Well, possibly a diminished France might. If for instance Aquitania had been fully independent, or England were fully able to integrate the Aquitaine into its realm, possibly the kingship of France at that time... weakened as it was- possibly for generations... may have vassalized to Germany in certain scenarios.

The princes of Wales continued to assert their kingly rank though accepted the mediatized title of prince, as attested to in the 12th century "History of Gruffydd ap Cynan", so in this regard it was a kingly rank mediatized to a higher kingship. Professor Lloyd states that the biography of Gruffydd ap Cynan was a declaration that the house of Aberffraw owed nothing to the kings of England for their kingly position, even if at times occasional homage was given to the English king.

My point was to offer a matrix that would emulate this relationship, and the ability for the king of England to vassalize the king of Scotland, or more likely the king of Wales, would emulate that scenario nicely. For instance, perhaps a vassalized king would lose the "king" title and become a "prince" until he is independent, but this is CKII material.

 

[jordarkelf]

For instance, perhaps a vassalized king would lose the "king" title and become a "prince" until he is independent, but this is CKII material.

That is why I hope for a CK2 on the EU3 engine. With EU3 this is how it works -- independent rulers are 'kings', once they're vassalized they become 'duke' automatically.
It is trivial to finetune this further.

 

[Keisok]

I'm fine with a Kingdom of Bohemia. After any madman who has power could call themselves king.

Besides, CK is hardly historical once the game goes, so I don't see a need to go after a vassal of the HRE and mess up the kingship. Just divide the lands into two dukes if you want to prevent that.

 

[Drachenfire]

I'm not certain if Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of Wales are supposed to represent native high kings or English creations of Lordship of Ireland and Principality of Wales.
.

Somehow I missed this my first few reads.

My understanding is that "King of Wales" represents the authority of any ruler who had won the control of most of Wales, weather in the sense of a king without a suzerain (prior to the 11th century), or as a mediatized Prince (post Norman conquest of Wales).

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Well yes I know all that Olaus Petrus

That is why I had placed quotations around the word "vassal" before King of Scotland. I recognize that there are petty kingships and greater kingships, but that flux is what CK is all about. A king may become a petty king if he lost a war or lost influence, exposing his position and opening himself to become effectively mediatized and subsumed as his power waned. Though later he, or his successors, may regain prestige and reassert their position as a "sovereign realm". But at any rate, the fact that there is still a "centuries long dispute between English and Scottish historians;" (well in this case a Welsh historian Professor John Davies of the Uni of Wales who asserts that the Welsh princes were as much a vassal to the Angivine Kings as was the king of Scotland.) serves to illustrate that there was indeed a flux in releative authority regarding the Scotland and England, and much room for argument either way.

Would the King of France vassalize to the Emperor? Well, possibly a diminished France might. If for instance Aquitania had been fully independent, or England were fully able to integrate the Aquitaine into its realm, possibly the kingship of France at that time... weakened as it was- possibly for generations... may have vassalized to Germany in certain scenarios.

The princes of Wales continued to assert their kingly rank though accepted the mediatized title of prince, as attested to in the 12th century "History of Gruffydd ap Cynan", so in this regard it was a kingly rank mediatized to a higher kingship. Professor Lloyd states that the biography of Gruffydd ap Cynan was a declaration that the house of Aberffraw owed nothing to the kings of England for their kingly position, even if at times occasional homage was given to the English king.

My point was to offer a matrix that would emulate this relationship, and the ability for the king of England to vassalize the king of Scotland, or more likely the king of Wales, would emulate that scenario nicely. For instance, perhaps a vassalized king would lose the "king" title and become a "prince" until he is independent, but this is CKII material.

Scotland is sort of different than rest of the "Celtic kingdoms". Sure English kings tried to integrate it into the Anglo-Norman realm like they did with Wales and Ireland, but Scotland was bit more than just a petty kingdom. It had reached a level of unity which other Celtic realms didn't reach and when Normans came it managed to modernise itself into European style feudal kingdom. There are brief periods when it was subject to English in the strict feudal sense, but otherwise kings managed to rule independently. Treaty of Falaise was such brief period, so you are correct when you say that Angevins were Scotland's overlords. Or to be more precise, Henry II was. Richard didn't care about Scotland and just wanted them to pay out from the contract. Eventually even the English did recognise the Scottish sovereignity.

Cases where king is vassal to other king (petty kings not included) are extremely rare and often complicated. Bohemia is a special case. Closest similar case is Piast's Duchy/Kingdom of Poland, which was occasionally dependant from the Empire, like Bohemia was. Once Polish monarchy managed to defeat the internal opponents, then rulers of Poland also refused to recognise the Emperor's overlordship.

In normal cases when ruler occupied some kingdom he declared himself or his local ally as the new king rather than demanded vassalization from his equal. Such action would have been considered as rude behaviour and a personal insult.

Idea of Aquitania as independent kingdom (like in early middle ages) is rather interesting, local princes had a lot of autonomy in the high middle ages, but none of them ever managed to get into a position where they could actually create an independent realm, because they were too tied into the French power games. In any case even if France would have been divided into Occitan and Frankish kingdoms, I hardly see it plausible that either of these realms would join to the Empire, especially not after Carolingians lost power in West and East Francia.

King's personal sphere of influence would be good concept for CKII, because it could be used to show how strong kingdoms can bully smaller realms, even when they have no actual feudal lordship over the realm.

 

[Snaake]

I'm not certain if Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of Wales are supposed to represent native high kings or English creations of Lordship of Ireland and Principality of Wales.

Why not either, depending on how your game turns out: CK is practically meant to give you a chance to forge your own, ahistorical Europe.

Would the King of France vassalize to the Emperor? Well, possibly a diminished France might. If for instance Aquitania had been fully independent, or England were fully able to integrate the Aquitaine into its realm, possibly the kingship of France at that time... weakened as it was- possibly for generations... may have vassalized to Germany in certain scenarios.

Considering this paragraph and the previous comment on ahistorical occurrences: In my Current game Provence, Champagne and Aquitaine have become independent of France (and Brittany never has been under French rule so far), so France is less than half of what it starts out in 1066. In such a situation, it's not so far fetched that France might be vassalised to a strong, unified HRE for example, if such a thing existed.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Why not either, depending on how your game turns out: CK is practically meant to give you a chance to forge your own, ahistorical Europe.



Considering this paragraph and the previous comment on ahistorical occurrences: In my Current game Provence, Champagne and Aquitaine have become independent of France (and Brittany never has been under French rule so far), so France is less than half of what it starts out in 1066. In such a situation, it's not so far fetched that France might be vassalised to a strong, unified HRE for example, if such a thing existed.

I still don't see that happening, if the Emperor would have conquered France he would have called himself King of the West and East Franks rather than vassalized the King of France. Also while it's not far fetched that French dukes would have reached position where they don't make homage to king and act as independent lords (they did that occasionally), they would still have been nominally part of France rather than completely independent. CK doesn't simulate too well situation where vassals ignore their lords. I hope that in CKII you can be nominally vassal but actually be in more or less open rebellion against the king.